4.7 Article

Gold nanoparticles enhanced electrochemiluminescence of graphite-like carbon nitride for the detection of Nuclear Matrix Protein 22

期刊

SENSORS AND ACTUATORS B-CHEMICAL
卷 205, 期 -, 页码 176-183

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2014.08.070

关键词

Electrochemiluminescence immunosensor; Graphite like carbon nitride; Gold nanoparticles; Nuclear Matrix Protein 22

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21175057, 21375047, 21377046]
  2. Science and Technology Plan Project of Jinan [201307010]
  3. Special Foundation for Taishan Scholar Professorship of Shandong Province and UJN [ts20130937]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel label-free electrochemiluminescence (ECL) immunosensor was developed for the detection of Nuclear Matrix Protein 22 (NMP 22) based on the graphite-like carbon nitride (g-C3N4) and gold nanopartides (AuNPs). Graphite-like carbon nitride was firstly combined with AuNPs, which promoted the electrons transfer and enhanced the ECL intensity of g-C3N4 largely. Then, anti-NMP 22 was immobilized onto the electrode through Au-NH2 without the usage of crosslinking agents. The connection between AuNPs and antibody influenced the conductive performance of AuNPs, leading to some decrease of ECL intensity. Then, bovine serum albumin (BSA) solution was dropped on the surface to block nonspecific binding sites. Finally, after the specific immunoreaction between NMP 22 and anti-NMP 22, the ECL intensity decreased further, because the protein on the electrode hindered the diffusion of luminescent reagents and electrons toward the electrode surface. Therefore, a linear relation between ECL intensity and the logarithm of NMP 22 concentration was obtained from 50.0 pg mL(-1) to 2.0 ng/mL (R-2 = 0.988) with the detection limit of 10.0 pg mL(-1). The proposed ECL immunosensor provides a rapid, simple, and sensitive immunoassay strategy for protein detection, which might be promising for clinical application. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据